Dear Larry and all, I've sketched a concrete suggestion for a resolution process between conflicting editors, within the framework Larry put forth. It's rather complicated and detailed, but I hope that something useful can come out of it. Inspiration to new avenues of thought, perhaps?
Let's assume that two or more editors are in disagreement over the contents of an article. My suggestion is that a board of neutral editors are formed with the specific objective of synthesizing an article which is considered 'approved' by CZ's standards, through a semi-automated workflow. Creation of a semi-automated workflow: - Any editor within the community has the right to initiate a disagreement process workflow. As the name implies, this is done when an agreement over the contents of an article cannot be made by conventional means. - The workflow is connected to the article, and versions attributed to every side of the conflict must be included, along with one spokesman for each version. - When these requirements are met, the workflow proceeds to a constable for reviewing and approval. (To make sure that it's not a case of bad behaviour, that every side is actually represented by one and only one version and spokesman, and so on.) Forming the board: - In the instant that the workflow is approved, a group of five or seven (?) randomly selected editors from the community, or a subset of the community, is invited to join a board. This random selection process is also automated. - The invitation will stand for a period of time, if an editor has failed to respond by that time or the invitation has been declined, it is passed on to another randomly chosen editor. Removing bias: - When the board has formed, the spokesmen of the disputants are asked to approve it. Board members can be disapproved by each of the spokesmen. In that case new randomly selected editors will automatically be invited to take their place. However, each spokesman can only disapprove a total of three (?) board members in this process. After that, the board is automatically considered accepted. (This can take time, but it won't take forever.) - When the board has been 'accepted' by all sides, they will convene to discuss the matter. - If the board finds itself in internal disagreement, matters will be settled by majority rule. Reconciliation and article synthesis: The board will review the rivaling versions of the article in question and create a synthesis. My suggestion would be in the following manner. 1a. Attempt to verify facts on the matter, preferably by external sources. Exclude parts that violate facts, and those that do not are passed on to point 1b. 1b. Attempt to verify and remove interpretive bias. Parts that are deemed not biased by personal opinion or belief are passed on to point 2. (1c. More points..?) 2. Attempt to create a synthesis. Those parts that are found to be in agreement are merged, and those that are in disagreement are passed on to point 3. 3. Attempt to verify accordance with current opinion, preferably by external sources. Those parts that greatly differs from what the board percieves as current opinion are excised, the rest is passed on to point 4. 4. The disagreements that still remain are included in the synthesis from point 2, carefully stated in a neutral way. (e.g. "While some are suggesting A, others are arguing B, but this remains a topic of discussion.") 5. The resulting synthesized article is sent to the spokesmen for commenting and approval. If any of the spokesmen choose to comment or disapprove (or both), the board will take the comments into consideration and internally reevaluate the document. (Although they may agree on not changing anything.) The resulting article is directly passed on to point 6. 6. Without furher involving the spokesmen, the reevaluated document is automatically considered approved by CZ. If parts have been excised in point 3 (current opinion) they are appended to the approved article with a formal CZ statment that there are disagreements which are inconsistent with current opinion. (If a spokesman have disapproved the article in point 5, it's concievable that this should also show somehow.) - In the instant that the synthesized article reaches approval, the board is dissolved and the workflow is terminated. Perhaps a workflow such as this one can be implemented in a standard user interface? Regards, /Göran Wallin Citerar Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear all, > > I want to start a discussion about how to resolve disputes among editors, a > topic we haven't really hashed through yet. It is one of the most important > topics that I *haven't* yet written about in the CZ policy doc (it's taking > a long time because I keep getting distracted by other stuff!), and the > reason I haven't is that I'm not sure what to say yet. It's not that I have > no ideas, either (since when did I ever lack for ideas?). It's because we > absolutely must get this right; it's really deeply important. I'm asking > for your help. > > The problem is this. Unlike, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy > or the Encyclopedia of Earth, which both have lead editors assigned to > particular articles or subject areas, which editors make the decisions with > regard to those articles/areas, *we* are proposing to approach editorial > responsibilities in "the wiki way." That is, for any given article or set > of articles, there is no particular editor who is *assigned* to make > decisions about that/those article(s). Rather, experts--who meet some > objectively verifiable qualifications, arrive on the scene, and choose to > become editors--must work together collaboratively. So naturally they'll > have disagreements, some of which can't be resolved by discussion and > compromise. *Decisions*, binding decisions about content, will need to be > made--particularly considering that we will be publishing particular > versions of articles as "approved." > > Before actually forwarding any proposals for a process to make these > editorial content decisions, I think it's a good idea to consider some > constraints, or conditions, that a good proposal should satisfy. What > should a well-designed decision process look like? > > (?) The process should elicit the truth. This seems like an obvious > constraint. The outcome of these decisions will be to make a CZ article > read one way rather than another. Presumably, whether it reads one way or > another, if it comes down to a formal process, is going to seem important to > some very well-informed people. It is crucial, then, that the process > outputs something satisfactory. Now we'd like to say that the satisfactory > outcome is precisely expressible as the truth. The trouble, however, is > that if we're using this process to settle a question, then clearly, > well-informed people have different ideas about what the correct answer to > the question is. In that case, do we declare what is, in fact, the truth? > No, because that will put off the losing party and bias the resource. The > better requirement is this: > > (1) The process should be neutral. It should elicit expert knowledge (or > opinion) faithfully and neutrally--or, when an issue is primarily > socio-political, then according to the preponderance of opinion in the > English-speaking world. But it should *accurately* describe the full range > of such knowledge, or opinion. On Wikipedia, there are many people who make > all sorts of claims about what is or isn't "neutral" or "biased" and clearly > haven't got the first clue about what the requirements of the neutrality > policy (never, ever to be referred to as "NPOV" on the Citizendium please > :-) ) is. > > (2) The process should not put off editors; in particular, it should be > regarded as fair. This has a raft of subrequirements: > > (a) People should get a fair hearing. They should have an > opportunity to express themselves fully and to be heard. There should be a > full examination of the relevant facts, i.e., a dialectic. > > (b) The process itself should not be biased in favor of any > particular party to the dispute. > > (c) The person(s) making the decision should be as unbiased as > possible, and should be publicly committed and responsible to the ideal of > unprejudiced judgment. > > (d) The process should not depend on reading ancillary judgments or > debates, or on the outcome of such judgments or debates, that happen apart > from the process; in other words, it must be an *independent* process. > (Otherwise, the process can easily be corrupted and rendered unfair by that > ancillary debate.) > > (e) An exception to the latter is that the decision should be > broadly consistent with "precedent." > > (f) Matters of bad behavior should be strictly separated from the > merits of content questions. A credible position should not be saddled with > the poor behavior of a rogue editor. Therefore, probably, the "history" of > the question (on the wiki) might be ruled as "inadmissible" in the > proceedings. > > (3) The process should not drag out endlessly. It should have an end-point > and an established way to reach it. A spectacularly dynamic content > creation system depends on the smooth and rapid operation of this process. > Therefore, it should not have multiple bottlenecks and steps a la the old > Nupedia system. > > (4) The process must be a "last resort." Since it is apt to be > time-consuming, most controversies over decisions should be made more > informally, in keeping with the "wikiwiki" (i.e., quick) way. > > (5) On the one hand, decisions, once made, should not be able to be unmade > quickly, and should be unmade only if there is some new fact or > consideration of which the decisionmakers were previously unaware. > > (6) On the other hand, a decision made "long ago" (however long that might > be) should be able to be revisited when the relevant personnel have changed > sufficiently (whatever that might be). > > (7) In the interests of efficiency, it is best not to create new roles, but > to employ people from a pre-existing group (e.g., editors in a given > workgroup), unless absolutely necessary. > > (8) Note that the plan of record is to employ, **somehow**, groups of > editors to make these decisions, in the form of "editorial workgroups." > This is only a weak constraint. The basic and stronger constraint is that > *editors* are the ones who make these decisions. > > (9) What else? > > I am tempted to go on and offer some proposals for decisionmaking processes > that satisfy these conditions. But I'd rather let you do that, because this > is already long (but not as long as some other of my posts!). > > --Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
